Indian Journal of Science and Technology, Vol 9(40), DOI: 10.17485/ijst/2016/v9i40/103249, October 2016
ISSN (Print) : 0974-6846
ISSN (Online) : 0974-5645
Role of Message Appeal and Regulatory Focus in the
Effects of Visual Perspective on Reactions toward
Advertisements
Seokbong Woo1 and Seongsoo Lee2*
Department of Industrial and Advertising Psychology, Daejeon University, 62 Daehak-ro, Dong-gu, Daejeon,
34520, South Korea; [email protected]
2
Department of Counseling Psychology and Social Welfare, Sun Moon University, 70 Sunmoon-ro 221Beong-gil,
Tangjeong-myeon, Asan-si, Chungcheongnam-do, 31460, South Korea; [email protected]
1
Abstract
Objectives: This research is designed to extend our understanding of the effects of visual perspective on advertising by
incorporating verbal element in an ad and consumer characteristic. Methods/Statistical Analysis: Visual perspective,
message appeal, and regulatory focus were employed as independent variables. As an experimental material four black
and white print ads which were differed in visual perspective of images in an ad (first-person, third-person) x message
appeal (private use, public use) were created. Regulatory focus was manipulated by making participants complete life
survey. Findings: Extant research has suggested that visual perspective plays a prominent role in consumer persuasion.
However, not much research efforts have been given to the role of the perspective of visual image in an advertising context.
Firstly, this research demonstrates that perspective of visual image interacts with message appeal. Results showed that
when visual image in ad was shown from the third-person (vs. first-person) perspective, the verbal message appeal of
public use (vs. private use) revealed more favorable attitudes toward ad and product evaluations. Further, it was found
that the participants’ regulatory orientation significantly moderated the interaction effects of visual perspective and
message appeal. Hence, the interaction effects of third-person (vs. first-person) perspective and message appeal of public
use (vs. private use) were eliminated when the participants’ regulatory focus was promotion-focus (vs. prevention-focus).
Improvements/Applications: Practitioners should be cautious when determining the camera angles of ad images and
consider the type of message appeal of an ad and the target audiences’ regulatory focus.
Keywords: Attitude toward Ad, Message Appeal, Regulatory Focus, Stylistic Properties, Visual Perspective
1. Introduction
In contemporary advertising, alongside a verbal component, visual images play a prominent role in ad execution1.
Previous studies which examined the effects of visual
images have shown the persuasive power of pictures in
advertisements1–7. Recently, attention has been drawn to
the effects of stylistic properties of visual images depicted
in advertising8. Among these stylistic properties, this
study focuses on that of visual perspective. Visual perspective is a mental simulation of events through one’s
own mind’s eye9. Extant researches on imagery perspec*Author for correspondence
tive have shown that visual perspective affects attention
to information and emotional reactions10–12, event representation and information processing13–15, resulting in
persuasive effects. Although research on visual perspective suggest that it has persuasive effects in consumer
settings, less is known about how it operates when combined with the verbal components in an ad and consumer
characteristics in the context of advertising effects. In16
contend that interpretation of the events can be changed
by the type of visual perspectives taken by participants
through the top-down and bottom-up processing.
Visualized behavior is construed to have concrete features
Role of Message Appeal and Regulatory Focus in the Effects of Visual Perspective on Reactions toward Advertisements
when first-person perspective is activated. On the other
hand, in the third-person perspective, people use abstract
psychological properties of personal ideals and social
norms (e.g., others’ approval or interpersonal concern)
to interpret visualized behavior17. If so, it is likely that ad
messages appealing to private or public use may interact with the effects of the visual perspectives of images
in the ad. As frequently emphasized, ad effects are determined by a combination of visual and verbal elements18.
However, it is difficult to find empirical studies focusing
on how the visual perspective of images depicted in an ad
interacts with the verbal message. Along with the verbal
components in an ad, the consumer, as a target audience,
characteristics might also contribute to the ad effects.
Particularly, this research is interested in the consumers’
regulatory orientation. Extant studies have demonstrated
that when consumers are promotion-focused, they tend
to more depend on their internal sources. However, when
consumers are prevention-focused, they pay more attention to external sources (e.g., self-image perceived by
others) in making judgments and decisions19,20. From
these findings, we might predict that consumers’ motivational orientation moderates the interaction effects of
visual perspective and verbal message appeal. Present
study is to extend our understanding of visual perspective
in the context of advertising by considering the message
appeal as a verbal component in an ad and regulatory
focus as a consumer characteristic simultaneously.
2. Visual Perspective and Message
Appeal
People have the ability to mentally simulate objects or
events in their mind’s eye. This feature is related to the
visual ability to construct different image perspectives.
Two distinct visual perspectives are suggested; firstperson and third-person perspective. When people take
a first-person perspective, they see themselves as if they
actually experienced the events. At other times, people
take third-person perspective. In this case, they become
the object of a scene which is observed by other people.
Visual perspective can be shifted at will and external
stimuli such as photographs or instructions can prime
specific visual perspectives21. The key mechanism of
visual perspective in shaping event representations
primarily lies in the processing styles; the top-down processing and bottom-up processing of information. When
2
Vol 9 (40) | October 2016 | www.indjst.org
a first-person perspective of a pictured event is taken, bottom-up processing is promoted and concrete features of
the visualized images are used to assign meaning to them.
Meanwhile, in top-down processing which is triggered
by a third-person perspective, abstract features are incorporated and so a broader, abstract meaning is assigned
to them. Recent studies investigated whether a specific
processing style promoted by a first-person or a thirdperson perspective affects behavioral intentions. In one
study, voting intention was found to be increased when
participants took third-person perspective of their voting
behavior22. This result is possible because voting behavior is made through abstract terms which encourage the
participants to deploy their abstract personal disposition. A similar finding was revealed by23. They found
that eagerness to achieve academic success was increased
when the participants visualized their behavior from
observer’s perspective, as compared to actor’s perspective.
Furthermore, suggest that when people take the observer’s perspective other-oriented interpretations become
superior. When the participants gave up on attending a
party in order to study for an exam, observer’s perspective
triggered more other-oriented emotions. More recently,
show that top-down processing promoted by the thirdperson perspective makes social concerns (e.g., other’s
approval) more salient and that these concerns take on
a greater role when interpreting visualized behaviors. In
their study, two imagined behaviors, private and public,
were employed. The results showed the interaction effects
of visual perspective and the types of imagined behavior.
When target behavior was imagined as public, third-person perspective was more effective in making participants
participate in behavior. However, first-person perspective
was more effective when target behavior was imagined
as private. In the persuasive context of advertising, message appeal is a crucial element of the creative strategy
in achieving ad goals24. Therefore, extending the role of
visual perspective by empirically examining the impact
of message appeal would be worthwhile. Regarding our
research interest, based on the studies mentioned earlier,
it is suggested that visual perspective is dependent on
whether the verbal message appeals to private or public
usage concerns. When an image in an ad is taken from the
third-person perspective, other-oriented interpretations
might be activated and, therefore message appeal of public use emphasizing interpersonal, social concerns may
produce more positive ad effects. However, in the case
Indian Journal of Science and Technology
Seokbong Woo and Seongsoo Lee
of a first-person perspective, internally driven inferences
might be used. Accordingly, ad messages of private use
appeal may produce more favorable reactions toward ad
compared to ad messages of public use appeal. Therefore,
we suggest the following hypotheses regarding the interaction effects of visual perspective and message appeal.
H1. When the first-person perspective is used in an
ad, attitudes toward ad and product evaluations will be
more favorable in message appeal of private use compared to that of public use.
H2. When the third-person perspective is used in an
ad, attitudes toward ad and product evaluations will be
more favorable in message appeal of public use compared
to that of private use.
3. Moderation of Regulatory
Focus
Broadly speaking, products have two functions in terms
of fulfilling consumers’ goals by proving positive reinforcement or negative reinforcement. Some consumers
seek products to be better and others pursue products not
to be worse. This idea is closely related to regulatory focus
theory25. Based on hedonic principles, theory of regulatory focus suggests different motivational dispositions:
Promotion focus versus prevention focus. These two systems coexist in an individual and so are conceptualized as
motivational states. When observed from the viewpoint
of motivational states, researchers conceptualized regulatory foci as can be activated momentarily by situational
stimuli or as stable individual difference variables26.
Promotion-focused consumers are driven by goals based
on aspirations, ideals, and growth and so positive outcomes take great role in pursuing their behavior. On the
other hand, when consumers are prevention-focused they
give more weight to negative results27. Research has established that strategies compatible with regulatory focus
are preferred to those that are incompatible. Promotionfocused consumers tend to pursue eagerness strategies
to attain accomplishment and growth28,29. Meanwhile,
when making decisions, prevention-focused consumers
are more sensitive to security and safety and attach more
weight to vigilance strategies in order to minimize risks30.
For example, in a study on brand-extension, driven by
their desire to reduce perceived risk and uncertainty prevention-focused consumers were found to prefer similar
extension to dissimilar extension31. According to regulatory focus activates different directions of information
Vol 9 (40) | October 2016 | www.indjst.org
processing and different modes of exploration are triggered by the type of regulatory foci. For example32, shows
that remembering the information of evaluation-focused
and attribute-focused is differentially affected by regulatory focus and promotion-focus facilitates remembering
of more evaluative-focused information than factual information. Further, promotion-focused consumers who
adopt eagerness regulatory strategies more tend to depend
on their internal source when making evaluative judgments. On the contrary, prevention-focused consumers
more tend to resort to external source because they tend
to adopt vigilance regulatory strategies and to be risk
averse. In also suggest that when consumers are prevention-focused, they strongly tend to rely on external data
(e.g., other people’s opinion and assessment) in making
a decision. In33 investigated how product evaluations are
affected by the regulatory fit between visual perspective
and modes of exploration. They found interaction effects
of visual perspectives and regulatory foci. That is, when
third-person perspective is combined with preventionfocus, and when first-person perspective is combined
with promotion-focus product evaluations are more
favorable. As previously noted, the type of verbal message
appeal may interact with the visual perspective. When the
third-person perspective of an ad image is used, otheroriented interpretations might be activated and message
appeal of public use, which emphasizes interpersonal and
social concerns, may produce more favorable reactions
toward the ad. On the contrary, in first-person perspective, internally driven inferences might be used and
message appeal of private use might produce more favorable reactions toward the ad compared to message appeal
of public use. If so, promotion-focus would fit better with
the first-person perspective and message appeal of private
use than prevention-focus. Meanwhile, prevention-focus
would fit better with the third-person perspective and
message appeal of public use. This suggests that although
the first-person (vs. third-person) perspective is combined with message appeal of private use (vs. public use),
the reactions to the ad might be moderated by the type
of regulatory focus. With respect to the moderating role
of the participants’ regulatory focus, following hypotheses
are proposed.
H3. Under conditions of the first-person perspective and message appeal of private use, attitudes toward
ad and product evaluations will be more favorable when
participants are promotion-focused compared to prevention-focused.
Indian Journal of Science and Technology
3
Role of Message Appeal and Regulatory Focus in the Effects of Visual Perspective on Reactions toward Advertisements
H4. Under conditions of third-person perspective
and message appeal of public use, attitudes toward ad
and product evaluations will be more favorable when
participants are prevention-focused compared to promotion-focused.
4. Method
4.1 Study Design and Participants
This study employed a between-subjects design of 2 (visual
perspective: first-person vs. third-person) x 2 (message
appeal: private usage vs. public usage) x 2 (regulatory
focus: Promotion vs. prevention). Total 167 undergraduate students (average = 21.1; 34.7% male) participated in
this study. Eight experimental groups were employed and
random assignment of participants was made.
4.2 Stimulus
Four black and white print ads with different visual perspectives of the image in them (first-person, third-person)
x message appeal (private use, public use) were created.
The first-person and third-person visual perspectives of
the images in the ad were created with reference to the
method of assigning the camera angle used by. Because
various product types may cause confounding effects this
study employed just one type of product, mouthwash.
The rationale for choosing mouthwash was it is a product
familiar to the college students and suitable for delivering both types of message appeal. The message appeals
were presented by the ad copy. Private use appeal contained ad copy stressing oral health for oneself and public
use appeal contained ad copy stressing concern about bad
breath in relation to others.
4.3 Procedure
To manipulate regulatory foci and prevent participants
from assuming the intent of the study, two independent
studies were aligned. First being a student life survey
and the second an evaluation of an advertisement for a
new mouthwash. Then, the participants were randomly
assigned a particular version of the questionnaire containing the target ad. To manipulate prevention and
promotion-focus, the participants were asked, through
life survey, to write about things they do not want to happen (want to happen) in their lives and ways to avoid
(achieve) them34. After completing the life survey, the
4
Vol 9 (40) | October 2016 | www.indjst.org
participants were told that they would evaluate an advertisement for a new mouthwash belonging to a fictitious
brand. The participants viewed the target ad for sixty
seconds and then responded to three 7-point semantic differential scales of attitudes toward ad (Cronbach’s
α = .74) and four 7-point semantic differential scales of
product evaluation (Cronbach’s α = .78). Finally, some
questions for manipulation checks of visual perspective
(one item) and message appeal (Cronbach’s α = .93) were
administered. In the analysis, averaged scores were used.
After completing the questionnaire, debriefing was given
to participants and dismissed.
5. Results
5.1 Manipulation Checks
The three-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) on visual
perspective, message appeal, and regulatory focus as
independent variables revealed that all of the manipulations were successful. Specifically, in the manipulation
check of visual perspective, the first-person perspective was perceived more as the actor’s perspective (M =
2.49) and the third-person perspective was perceived
more as the observer’s perspective (M = 5.34), F(1,159)
= 130.85, p<.001. No main effects of message appeal and
regulatory focus were observed. In the manipulation
check of message appeal, copy of private use (M = 2.69)
was perceived more as use for personal and self-oriented
purposes and copy of public use was perceived (M =
5.99) more as use for other people and other-oriented
purposes, F(1,159) = 309.26, p<.001. No main effects of
visual perspective or regulatory focus emerged. Finally, as
expected, in the manipulation check of regulatory focus,
prevention-focused participants reported more thinking
on prevention (5.22 vs. 2.23), F(1,159) = 236.73, p<.001
and the promotion-focused participants revealed more
promotion-related thinking (5.62 vs. 2.12), F(1,159) =
449.02, p<.001. No main effects of visual perspective or
message appeal were found.
5.2 Interaction of Visual Perspective and
Message Appeal
We predicted that the visual perspective of ad image
would interact with the verbal message appeal in H1
and H2. ANOVA revealed significant interaction effects
between visual perspective and message appeal in atti-
Indian Journal of Science and Technology
Seokbong Woo and Seongsoo Lee
tudes toward ad (F(1,159) = 44.48, p<.001). The contrast
analysis revealed more favorable attitudes toward ad
when visual image of the ad were first-person perspective and message appeal was private use (M = 3.85) than
message appeal was public use (M = 3.25), (F(1,163) =
14.37, p<.001). Meanwhile, in the third-person perspective condition, message appeal of public use produced
more favorable attitudes toward ad (M = 4.07) than message appeal of private use (M = 3.40), (F(1,163) = 17.28,
p<.001) Figure 1. The analysis of the product evaluations
also showed similar patterns. The product evaluations
were more favorable in the conditions of first-person perspective and message appeal of private use (Mpublic =
3.44 vs. Mprivate = 4.20), (F(1,163) = 24.26, p<.001). The
participants exposed to the ad image of the third-person
perspective showed more favorable product evaluations
when message appeal of public use was used (Mprivate =
3.67 vs. Mpublic = 4.30), (F(1,163) = 16.00, p<.001) Figure
2. Thus, these interaction effects were consistent with H1
and H2.
independent variables was also insignificant, F = .144,
p<.71. However, testing H3 and H4 requires the specified
two experimental conditions to be compared. Therefore,
to test the hypotheses concerning the moderating role of
regulatory foci in the interaction of message appeal and
visual perspective, planned comparison was conducted
to analyze attitudes toward ad and product evaluations.
The results revealed that the regulatory focus significantly
moderated the effects of visual perspective and message appeal. Although the participants were exposed to
the first-person perspective and message appeal of private use, the attitudes toward ad (Mprevention = 3.36
vs. Mpromotion = 4.38), (F(1,159) = 28.96, p<.001) and
product evaluations (Mprevention = 3.85 vs. Mpromotion
= 4.59), (F(1,159) = 13.28, p<.001) were more favorable
when the participants’ regulatory focus was promotionfocus. Hence, H3 was supported.
Figure 2. Product evaluation as a function of visual
perspective and message appeal.
Figure 1. Attitude toward Ad as a function of visual
perspective and message appeal.
5.3 Moderation of Regulatory Focus
It was predicted that the interaction effects of visual perspective and message appeal would be moderated by the
participants’ regulatory focus. Table 1 and Table 2 show
the cell mean and standard deviation of ad attitudes
and product evaluations resulting from the interactions
of three independent variables. The three-way ANOVA
revealed insignificant main effects of the three independent variables. The interaction effects among the three
Vol 9 (40) | October 2016 | www.indjst.org
Under conditions of third-person perspective and
message appeal of public use, the attitudes toward ad
(Mpromotion = 3.42 vs. Mprevention = 4.67), (F(1,159)
= 43.52, p<.001) and product evaluations (Mpromotion =
3.84 vs. Mprevention = 4.72), F(1,159) = 18.96, p<.001)
were more favorable in the condition of prevention-focus
than promotion-focus. The interaction effects of firstperson (third-person) perspective and message appeal
of private (public) use disappeared when the regulatory
focus was prevention-focus (promotion-focus). As predicted, H4 was supported.
Indian Journal of Science and Technology
5
Role of Message Appeal and Regulatory Focus in the Effects of Visual Perspective on Reactions toward Advertisements
Table 1. Mean and standard deviation of attitude toward ad
First-person perspective
Third-person perspective
Private appeal
Public appeal
Private appeal
Public appeal
Promotion-focus
4.38 (.58)
3.24 (.44)
3.37 (.49)
3.42 (.69)
Prevention-focus
3.36 (.64)
3.26 (.87)
3.43 (.51)
4.67 (.56)
Table 2. Mean and standard deviation of product evaluation
First-person perspective
Third-person perspective
Private appeal
Public appeal
Private appeal
Public appeal
Promotion-focus
4.59 (.68)
3.32 (.60)
3.78 (.53)
3.84 (.78)
Prevention-focus
3.85 (.72)
3.56 (.79)
3.56 (.64)
4.72 (.37)
6. Discussion
Evidence from the previous studies suggests that ad effects
are affected by the type of visual perspective of the images
depicted in advertising. However not much empirical
efforts have been given to the ad-based verbal messages
(copy) and consumers’ motivational orientation as potential moderators for the effects of visual perspective. This
study was interested in extending the role of visual perspective by incorporating message appeal as a verbal
component in an ad and regulatory focus as a consumer
variable. We examined the participants’ attitudes toward
ad and product evaluations when the visual perspective
interacted with the verbal message appeal (private use vs.
public use). Further, we also investigated how regulatory
focus moderated the interaction effects of visual perspective and message appeal. Specifically, the present study
shows that first-person perspective of the visual image of
an ad and message appeal of private use produced more
favorable attitudes toward ad and product evaluations than
message appeal of public use. On the contrary, third-person perspective produced more favorable attitudes toward
ad and product evaluations when combined with message
appeal of public use. We also found the moderating role
of regulatory focus. Although the participants view the ad
image of the first-person perspective and message appeal
of private use, attitudes toward ad and product evaluations were more favorable among promotion-focused
participants. Under conditions of the third-person perspective of the ad image and message appeal of public use,
attitudes toward ad and product evaluations were more
6
Vol 9 (40) | October 2016 | www.indjst.org
favorable when participants were prevention-focused.
This research contributes to extend the understanding of
the role of visual perspective into the context of advertising and to provide empirical evidence that effects of visual
perspective interacts with verbal component (message
appeal) in the ad and consumer characteristic (regulatory focus). Practically, our research suggests that ad
practitioners should exercise caution when using visual
perspective. Visual perspective should be considered not
only as an artistic element, but also as a representational
tool, which, in turn, affects consumers’ reactions toward
ads. Furthermore, as evidenced by this study, practitioners should be cautious when determining the camera
angles of ad images and consider the type of message
appeal of an ad and the target audiences’ regulatory focus.
On the theoretical side, our findings confirm the role of
visual perspective in ad persuasion and help to explain
its origin. Limitation of this study is related with using
one product type of mouthwash. Regarding the role of
visual perspective in internal or external representations,
it would be worthwhile to examine whether functional
and symbolic products moderate the persuasive effects of
visual perspective. The consumption of functional products mainly depends on their features and performance
and is less affected by others (peers, friends, and neighbors). However, consuming symbolic products is highly
influenced by the presence of others35. These differences
might affect the role of visual perspective. Examining
whether self-construal36 moderates the interaction effect
of visual perspective and message appeal would also be
valuable. For example, consumers exhibiting interdependent self-construal might react more favorably toward
Indian Journal of Science and Technology
Seokbong Woo and Seongsoo Lee
other-oriented message appeal of public use. On the contrary, those exhibiting independent self-construal might
produce more favorable outcomes for message appeal of
private use.
7. References
1. Phillips B, McQuarrie E. Beyond visual metaphor: A
new typology of visual rhetoric in advertising. Marketing
Theory. 2004 Jun; 4(1-2):113–36.
2. The information processing of pictures in print advertisements. Available from: http://jcr.oxfordjournals.org/
content/10/1/45
3. McQuarrie E, Mick D. On resonance: A critical pluralistic inquiry into advertising rhetoric. Journal of Consumer
Research. 1992 Sep; 19(2):180–97.
4. Messaris P. Visual Persuasion: The Role of images in advertising. CA: Thousand Oaks, Sage; 1997.
5. Mitchell A, Olson J. Are product beliefs the only mediator of advertising effects on brand attitudes? Journal of
Marketing Research. 1981 Aug; 18(3):318–32.
6. Scott L. Images in advertising: The need for a visual rhetoric. Journal of Consumer Research. 1994 Sep; 21(2):252–73.
7. Persuasive imagery. Available from: http://www.slideshare.
net/afvh/persuasive-imagery-a-consumer-response-perspective-by-scott-batra
8. Using stylistic properties of ad pictures to communicate
with consumers. Available from: http://jcr.oxfordjournals.
org/content/32/1/29
9. Nigro G, Neisser U. Point of view in personal memories.
Cognitive Psychology. 1983 Oct; 15(4):467–82.
10. Galinsky A, Ku G, Wang C. Perspective-taking and selfother overlap: Fostering social bonds and facilitating social
coordination. Group Process and Intergroup Relations.
2005 Apr; 8(2):109–24.
11. Hung I, Mukhopadhyay A. Lenses of the heart: How
actors’ and observers’ perspectives influence emotional
experiences. Journal of Consumer Research. 2012 Apr;
38(6):1103–15.
12. Valenti G, Libby L, Eibach R. Looking back with regret:
Visual perspective in memory images differentially affects
regret for actions and inactions. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology. 2011 Jul; 47(4):730–7.
13. Libby L, Eibach R. Looking back in time: Self-concept
change affects visual perspective in autobiographical memory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2002 Feb;
82(2):167–79.
14. Libby L, Shaeffer E, Eibach R. Seeing meaning in action:
A bidirectional link between visual perspective and action
identification level. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
General. 2009 Nov; 138(4):503–16.
Vol 9 (40) | October 2016 | www.indjst.org
15. McIssac H, Eich E. Vantage point in traumatic memory.
Psychological Science. 2004 Apr; 15(4):248–53.
16. Libby L, Eibach R, Valenti G, Hines K. Seeing failure in
your life: Imagery perspective determines whether selfesteem shapes reactions to recalled and imagined failure.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2011 Dec;
101(6):1157–73.
17. Uskul A, Kikutani M. Concerns about losing face moderate
the effect of visual perspective on health-related intentions
and behaviors. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology.
2014 Nov; 55:201–9.
18. Stafford E, Walker B, Blasko V. Headline-visual consistency
in print advertisements: Effects on processing and evaluation. Advances in Consumer Research. 1996; 23(1):56–62.
19. Avnet T, Higgins E. How regulatory fit affects value in
consumer choices and opinions. Journal of Marketing
Research. 2006 Feb; 43(1):1–10.
20. Pham M, Avnet T. Ideals and oughts and the reliance on
affect versus substance in persuasion. Journal of Consumer
Research. 2004; 30(4):503–18.
21. Robinson J, Swanson K. Field and observer modes of
remembering. Memory. 1993 Sep; 1(3):169–84.
22. Libby L, Eibach R, Shaeffer E, Slemmer J. Picture yourself at
the Polls. Psychological Science. 2007 Mar; 18 (3):199–203.
23. Vasquez N, Buehler R. Seeing future success: Does imagery
perspective influence achievement motivation? Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2007 Oct; 33(10):1392–405.
24. Yu Y, Kim E. Effective strategies to utilize cross-sexual
advertising models: Focus on the types of advertising
appeal and characteristics of models. Indian Journal of
Science and Technology. 2015 Apr; 8(S8):267–74.
25. Higgins E. Beyond pleasure and pain. American
Psychologist. 1997 Dec; 52(12):1280–300.
26. Cesario J, Higgins E, Scholer A. Regulatory fit and persuasion: Basic principles and remaining questions. Social and
Personality Compass. 2008; 2(1):444–63.
27. Higgins E. Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as
a motivational principle. Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology. 1998; 30:1–46.
28. Crowe E, Higgins E. Regulatory focus and strategic inclinations: Promotion and prevention in decision making.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes.
1997 Feb; 69 (2):117–32.
29. Levine J, Higgins E, Choi H. Development of strategic
norms in groups. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes. 2000 May; 82(1):88–101.
30. Herzenstein M, Posavac S, Brakus J. Adoption of new and
really new products: The effects of self-regulation systems
and risk salience. Journal of Marketing Research. 2007
May; 44(2):251–60.
Indian Journal of Science and Technology
7
Role of Message Appeal and Regulatory Focus in the Effects of Visual Perspective on Reactions toward Advertisements
31. Yeo J, Park J. Effects of parent-extension similarity and
self-regulatory focus on evaluations of brand extensions.
Journal of Consumer Psychology. 2006; 16(3):272–82.
32. Han K. A study on differences in attitudes and memory
effects according to the regulatory focus tendencies of facebook users and the types of message appeals. Indian Journal
of Science and Technology. 2016 Jul; 9(26):1–7.
33. Zhang J, Yang X. Stylistic properties and regulatory fit:
Examining the role of self-regulatory focus in the effectiveness of an actor’s vs observer’s visual perspective. Journal of
Consumer Psychology. 2015 Jul; 25(3):449–58.
8
Vol 9 (40) | October 2016 | www.indjst.org
34. Lee A, Aaker J. Bringing the frame into focus: The influence of regulatory fit on processing fluency and persuasion.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2004 Feb;
86(2):205–18.
35. Bhat S, Reddy S. Symbolic and functional positioning of
brands. Journal of Consumer Marketing. 1998; 15(1):32–
43.
36. Markus H, Kitayama S. Culture and the self: Implications
for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological
Review. 1991 Apr; 98(2):224–53.
Indian Journal of Science and Technology